SynthesisScientific reports2025
Evaluating oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: oncological safety, risks, and satisfaction-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Burden of Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications of Mastectomy, Breast Conservation, and Reconstruction Choices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Personalized Breast Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Risk-Informed Approaches to Technique Selection and Timing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: Bridging Oncological Safety and Aesthetic Excellence in the Era of Precision Surgery.Cureus · 2026Review
- Beyond survival: reconstructing body image and femininity after breast cancer.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) comprises diverse techniques aimed at enhancing aesthetic outcomes and safety in breast cancer treatment. However, a knowledge gap exists in understanding the comprehensive assessment of safety factors and satisfaction rates associated with OBCS techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare volume displacement (VD) and volume replacement (VR) techniques concerning oncological safety, complication rates and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was conducted in three databases-PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)-up to November 2023. Original articles with quantitative satisfaction rates, recurrence, re-excision, margin status, and complications (hematoma, seroma, wound infection, fat necrosis). The systematic search identified 17,374 records, with 80 eligible studies and 46 providing quantitative data. Results showed comparable oncological safety between VD and VR techniques, including similar recurrence (Prop: 0.02; CI 0.02-0.03) and re-excision rates (Prop: 0.05; CI 0.04-0.07). VR techniques had a higher incidence of fat necrosis (Prop: 0.07; CI 0.04-0.12). Overall satisfaction was high (Prop: 0.83; CI 0.78-0.87), with VD yielding the highest satisfaction (Prop: 0.93; CI 0.85-0.97). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery emerges as a successful approach for treating early-stage breast cancer, characterized by low associated risks and high satisfaction rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.